get_race_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what details are included, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid race names, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the domain (D&D 5E) and scope (specific race).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'race_name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the race must be specific and from D&D 5E. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific D&D 5E race'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_races' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific race rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other detail-retrieval tools (e.g., 'get_class_details'), so it's not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'search_races' for known race names, or how it relates to other detail tools like 'get_class_details'. There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.